DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species 1 (fig.1) in the reply filed on 1/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-16, 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a), which states "The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims".
Therefore, the “a ball joint” and “recess for receiving the ball joint” (claim 8) must be shown in the figures with reference characters that are described in the written description. Since a detailed illustration is essential for a proper understanding of the invention as is detailed in the 35 USC 112 clarity rejections elsewhere below, a mere graphical symbol or labeled representation is not acceptable.1
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-13, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
It is unclear whether or not claim 1 is to be in structural combination with the “movable component” or not. The preamble recites the movable component as mere functional intended use “for engaging or disengaging” whereas the body of the claim claims “connected to the movable component”. If applicant seeks narrow protection for structural combination with the movable component the phraseology “for” should be deleted from the preamble. If applicant seeks broad protection merely intended for functional use with a movable component then the latter “connected” limitation should be amended accordingly (e.g., adapted for connecting to, for connecting to, etc.)
The claim 1 limitation “the output end rotating about a rotation axis of the actuator at a distance from the rotation axis” is unclear as to how the end can both be “about” and “at a distance” the axis. As seen in applicant’s figure 4A, the end (13a) is not distanced/offset/etc. from axis (A) but instead centered thereon.
The claim 1 limitation “having a first end rotatably connected to the output end” is contrary to the figures and thus unclear. Figure 4A shows first end (14a) fixed to output end (13a) rather than rotating relative thereto as is implied by “rotatably connected”. Perhaps applicant intends to claim --fixed to rotate with--.
The claim 3 limitation “on a fixed structure” is unclear as to what element the structure is fixed to and in what manner.
It is unclear how the claim 8 limitation “the second end of the drive rod being provided with a ball joint, and the drive rod mounting part comprising a recess for receiving the ball joint” reads on the elected species since figure 4a shows drive rod 14 without any ball joint or recess therefore. Nor is it clear if applicant intends for ball joint to broadly encompass the pinned end 14b/12c since figures fail to depict any ball joint/recess with a reference character described in the written description as such. If applicant intends for claim 8 to be drawn to a species other than that elected then claim 8 should be withdrawn, noting that applicant elected species 1 without any traverse or request for additional non-depicted species to be included in the requirement.
The remaining claims depend from the above and are thus similarly unclear/rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10, 12, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Gailliard WO2022096562.
The prior art structures bolded below appear to inherently meet the functions/properties italicized below in accordance with MPEP §2112.01(I) and MPEP §2114, which states that where the prior art structure is substantially identical to the claimed structure, the PTO may presume claimed functions/properties to be inherently capable thereto, thus presenting a prima facie case and properly shifting the burden to applicant to obtain/test the prior art and provide evidence to the contrary.
Claim 1. A disconnection mechanism, for engaging or disengaging a fixed component and a movable component arranged on a first shaft extending in a first direction, wherein the disconnection mechanism comprises: a shift fork (F3), connected to (as best understood, see 35 USC 112 clarity rejection) the movable component (see written description of “changing gear”), the shift fork being constructed to be able to reciprocate linearly in the first direction, so that the movable component is engaged with or disengaged from the fixed component; an actuator (E), comprising an output end (end of shaft of E received in L3), the output end rotating about a rotation axis (A3) of the actuator at a distance from the rotation axis (as best understood, see 35 USC 112 clarity rejection); and a drive rod (L3), having a first end (end of L3 connected to shaft of E) rotatably connected (as best understood, see 35 USC 112 clarity rejection) to the output end and a second end (end of L3 connected to D3; and/or D3) rotatably connected to the shift fork (via D3), so that the output end, when rotating, is able to drive the shift fork to reciprocate linearly.
Claim 2. The disconnection mechanism according to Claim 1, the output end comprising an output shaft (output shaft of E received in/by L3), and the first end of the drive rod comprising an opening (opening in L3 receiving shaft of E therein) fitted round the output shaft.
Claim 3. The disconnection mechanism according to Claim 1, the disconnection mechanism comprising a shift fork rod (AF3) extending in the first direction, and the shift fork being supported on a fixed (as best understood, see 35 USC 112 rejections) structure (DA3, or E, or “transmission”) by means of the shift fork rod.
Claim 4. The disconnection mechanism according to Claim 3, the shift fork having a sleeve part (part of F3 surrounding AF3) fitted round the shift fork rod and a drive rod mounting part (part of F3 rotatably connected to D3, as seen in fig.1) extending outwards from the sleeve part, the drive rod mounting part being rotatably connected to the second end (via D3) of the drive rod.
Claim 5. The disconnection mechanism according to Claim 4, the drive rod mounting part comprising at least one arm (arms of F3 receiving D3 therebetween), which is rotatably connected to the second end of the drive rod by means of a mounting member (D3).
Claim 6. The disconnection mechanism according to Claim 5, the drive rod mounting part comprising two arms (two arms of F3 receiving D3 therebetween), so as to accommodate (via D3) the second end of the drive rod between the two arms.
Claim 7. The disconnection mechanism according to Claim 5, the mounting member being a pin (pin D3).
Claim 8. The disconnection mechanism according to Claim 4, the second end of the drive rod being provided with a ball joint (as best understood, the rounded end of D3 is a ball joint in as much as applicant’s elected species elements 14b/12c are, see 35 USC 112 clarity rejection), and the drive rod mounting part comprising a recess (recess in F3 receiving D3 therein/therethrough) for receiving the ball joint.
Claims 9 and 17. The disconnection mechanism according to Claim 4 (or claim 5), the shift fork being fixedly connected to the shift fork rod by means of the sleeve part (in that F3 is at least radially fixed to rod AF3 by the sleeve part of F3 and also the written description “each shaft AF1, AF2 and AF3 drives in axial translation the axial [forks] F1, F2 and F3 which is linked to it in translation…”), and the shift fork rod being supported on the fixed structure in such a way as to be slideable in the first direction (at least since the entire assembly, including the rod, is slideably in the first direction, see fig.1, and also the above noted written description of “axial translation… linked to it in translation”).
Claims 10 and 18. The disconnection mechanism according to Claim 4 (or claim 5), the shift fork being supported on the shift fork rod in such a way as to be slideable in the first direction by means of the sleeve part (in at least since the entire assembly, including the rod and sleeve, is slideable in the first direction noting applicant does NOT expressly claim fork slidable relative to rod), and the shift fork rod being fixedly connected to the fixed structure (in at least since AF3 is at least radially fixed to the fixed structure, see fig.1).
Claim 12. The disconnection mechanism according to Claim 3, the disconnection mechanism being arranged in (at least partially in) a housing (housing of E or “transmission”), and the fixed structure being part of the housing or a component fixed to the housing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 10, 11, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gailliard WO2022096562.
Claims 10, 11 and 18. The examiner takes Official Notice that it was extremely well known in the disconnection mechanism art for the shift fork to slide relative to the shift fork rod via a bush between the sleeve part of the shift fork and the shift fork rod. One of ordinary skill would easily recognize a fork sliding relative to a fixed rod (wherein fork movement requires no more room than the length of the fixed rod) to be more compact than a fork fixed to a sliding rod (which requires more axial room than the rod length to allow for rod sliding) and thus desireable/obvious. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify as such.
Claim 13. The examiner takes Official Notice that it was extremely well known in the disconnection mechanism art to supply a position sensor in the actuator for determining actuator output end rotational position, and/or a position sensor for determining shift fork position; either or both being well known to be desirable for the benefit of providing position information to a computer controller to improve shift timing/quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify as such.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon above is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure due general structural similarity thereto.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR L MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-7085.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/VICTOR L MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
1 See 37 CFR 1.83 which states: "(a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings. (b) When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith. (c) Where the drawings in a nonprovisional application do not comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the examiner shall require such additional illustration within a time period of not less than two months from the date of the sending of a notice thereof."